Appeal 3317550
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
5 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
the erection of a two-storey side extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a 2-storey semi-detached house with a pitched roof and a double-storey bay at the front. It mirrors its attached pair, albeit this symmetry has been somewhat disrupted by the addition of a large porch at the front. The property forms part of a planned estate comprising semi-detached and terraced housing in a notably verdant and pleasant setting. [address] the houses on the two sides of the road have been laid out and designed to mirror each other. With the exception of some porches and rendered frontages, the original planned layout and design has been retained. This gives the road a high degree of uniformity, a matter to which I attribute significant weight.
The proposal would comprise the erection of a 2-storey side addition with a pitched roof. Its frontage would be set slightly behind that of the existing front elevation and its ridge would be set a fraction below the existing ridge. Due to its siting and size however, the proposal would disrupt the balance between the pair of attached houses as well as the mirrored arrangement with the pair of houses opposite. In addition, the proposal would compromise the uniformity of [address] and the planned estate as a whole.
For these reasons the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. It therefore fails to accord with [name](a) and DH1 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy with [name] (2014) which, among other matters, require a high quality of design, limited to a scale and design appropriate to the locality. There is also conflict with the aims of Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and the guidance in the Council’s Residential Extensions, Basements and Conversions Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2018).
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 246No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 25 May 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 28 April 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3317550
- Application reference
- 22/3697
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Royal Borough of Greenwich
- Planning authority code
- E09000011
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Unknown
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- 48 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 28 February 2023
- Valid date
- 28 February 2023
- Start date
- 31 March 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 16 December 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 25 May 2023
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 33208
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21